im not really a beginner. ive been climbing 5 or 6 years. ive heard that the first person to climb a route gets to rate it. ive climbed some 5.10s that i thought were 5.9 and visa versa. individual height and experience alter perspective on how easy or hard a climb is. is there a defined set of rules as to what makes a 5.9, or a 5.10, a, b, or c or other ratings? case in point, i thought Primitive Paradox (GA)was a 5.10, while i dont think the Oyster at Sand rock (AL)is a 5.10a.

im not really a beginner. ive been climbing 5 or 6 years. ive heard that the first person to climb a route gets to rate it. ive climbed some 5.10s that i thought were 5.9 and visa versa. individual height and experience alter perspective on how easy or hard a climb is. is there a defined set of rules as to what makes a 5.9, or a 5.10, a, b, or c or other ratings? case in point, i thought Primitive Paradox (GA)was a 5.10, while i dont think the Oyster at Sand rock (AL)is a 5.10a.

Grades are merely suggestions. In some places, the FA calls the grade, and it stands as called, even if the community recognizes over time that this route is fairly stiff for the grade, or fairly soft. In other places, the grade call is more of a consensus effort, and the route grades are adjusted in subsequent guidebooks if the hold breaks, or if a new, more efficient, easier sequence is found that the FA did not use.

Regardless, grade exist so climbers could have something to argue about. IMO, arguing within one letter grade is pointless. it is just too fine a distinction.

In my experience, the closer you are to the average height/body type of your typical FA (most likely a guy, most likely in the 5'7"-5'11" height bracket), the more likely you are to feel that the grades are consistent, at least within the same area. The farther away you are from the mean, the more likely you are to feel that the route grades are all over the place.

im not really a beginner. ive been climbing 5 or 6 years. ive heard that the first person to climb a route gets to rate it. ive climbed some 5.10s that i thought were 5.9 and visa versa. individual height and experience alter perspective on how easy or hard a climb is. is there a defined set of rules as to what makes a 5.9, or a 5.10, a, b, or c or other ratings? case in point, i thought Primitive Paradox (GA)was a 5.10, while i dont think the Oyster at Sand rock (AL)is a 5.10a.

There is no defined set of rules. Generally speaking, grades are a consensus evaluation of how relatively-difficult a route is in relation to other routes.

Also, generally speaking, routes that were first climbed and graded a good while ago (70s-80s, maybe early 90s) tend to be stiffer graded than routes that have been graded in more recent times. To some extent, this was caused by the Yosemite decimal system originally topping out at 5.9/5.10, before it was extended to a more open-ended system.

And, of course, body size, and individual strengths will affect this. As will experience with different climbing styles. If you're used to face climbing on holds, then moving to jams and crack climbing will be hard, and that style of climbing will feel far harder than the grade.

Further, some routes will feel much harder to on-sight at grade, than to repeat/red-point as compared to others, depending on whether the holds and sequences are obvious or not. For example, a slightly overhanging splitter hand-crack may take a fair bit of work and technique -- but the sequence is usually pretty obvious; while a climb where you have to make a large move to a good hold that is invisible around a bulge can be harder to on-sight, but an overall easier climb, once you know the hold is there.

Climbing is complete anarchy. There are no clear rules or criteria other than higher numbers are more difficult.

Generally the crux of a route sets its rating. a 5.6 with one 5.10 move is a 5.10.

Pedantically in the Yosemite decimal system, 5.10 is 5.10a for the same reason that in the decimal system 22 is 22.0.

Also pedantically, route ratings are logrithmic. There's a lot more distance between a 5.10b and 5.10c than there is a 5.5 and 5.6

Anyone can rate any thing, as anywhere else in life. It'd be nice if at least 5 or so people climb a route and come to a consensus on rating before any one of those people publish their rating.

I don't think anyone can rate something they didn't climb, but it probably doesn't have to be a clean redpoint for them to rate it. I've hangdogged my way up routes that were beyond my ability and come up with the same rating as others that onsighted them.

As I have progressed in my abilities, I have not found myself less able to accurately rate easy routes. I just don't think I can rate things i can't personally climb.

Climbing is complete anarchy. There are no clear rules or criteria other than higher numbers are more difficult.

Generally the crux of a route sets its rating. a 5.6 with one 5.10 move is a 5.10.

Pedantically in the Yosemite decimal system, 5.10 is 5.10a for the same reason that in the decimal system 22 is 22.0.

Also pedantically, route ratings are logrithmic. There's a lot more distance between a 5.10b and 5.10c than there is a 5.5 and 5.6

Anyone can rate any thing, as anywhere else in life. It'd be nice if at least 5 or so people climb a route and come to a consensus on rating before any one of those people publish their rating.

I don't think anyone can rate something they didn't climb, but it probably doesn't have to be a clean redpoint for them to rate it. I've hangdogged my way up routes that were beyond my ability and come up with the same rating as others that onsighted them.

As I have progressed in my abilities, I have not found myself less able to accurately rate easy routes. I just don't think I can rate things i can't personally climb.

I know a lot of people believe in the whole 'climbing grades are logarithmic' argument, but I don't buy it. I just think that climbs at your current limit feel harder than those that are lower. For example, I can no longer tell the difference between 5.11s. I can't often tell the difference between 5.12a and 5.12c. I can definitely tell the difference between 5.13a and 5.13c. This isn't because there is some huge gap between the 13s, it actually seems to be a smaller difference than 5.11a and 5.11c did when at my limit. It is just that it is closer to the edge for me at the moment.

thanks everyone for not being smart***s. At least i know i'm not the only one shaking my head sometimes. What "dagibbs" says makes sense to me. I guess my climbing style is mostly frontal assault and cracks and jams give me some difficulty. Also the older rated climbs seeming harder makes sense because i've noticed it more in older climbing areas. I guess i'll learn to climb at the highest rating and then it wont matter. HaHa. thanks again.

I know a lot of people believe in the whole 'climbing grades are logarithmic' argument, but I don't buy it.

Never heard of it. What does it say ?

shotwell pretty much explained it:

Linear thinking: 10c is harder than 10b by the same increment that 10b is harder than 10a.

logarithmic thinking: each subsequent interval is bigger than the previous. E.i., a difference between 14a and 14b is bigger than the difference between 13a and 13b, which in turn is bigger than the difference between 12a and 12b, etc. etc., to the point where the difference between 10a and 10b is really tiny.

I know a lot of people believe in the whole 'climbing grades are logarithmic' argument, but I don't buy it.

Never heard of it. What does it say ?

shotwell pretty much explained it:

Linear thinking: 10c is harder than 10b by the same increment that 10b is harder than 10a.

logarithmic thinking: each subsequent interval is bigger than the previous. E.i., a difference between 14a and 14b is bigger than the difference between 13a and 13b, which in turn is bigger than the difference between 12a and 12b, etc. etc., to the point where the difference between 10a and 10b is really tiny.

I see. Discussing it seems pointless unless one defines what the metric for the difficulty of a route is. There are so many possibilities; some of which will result in closer to linear, others closer to logarithmic relationship.

I don't think it's fair to say that climbing is linear or logarithmic. Since grades are both relative and consensus. Perhaps grades seem logarithmic when thinking of climbs near or at your limit and seem linear when thinking of climbs well below or well beyond it.

I know a lot of people believe in the whole 'climbing grades are logarithmic' argument, but I don't buy it.

Never heard of it. What does it say ?

shotwell pretty much explained it:

Linear thinking: 10c is harder than 10b by the same increment that 10b is harder than 10a.

logarithmic thinking: each subsequent interval is bigger than the previous. E.i., a difference between 14a and 14b is bigger than the difference between 13a and 13b, which in turn is bigger than the difference between 12a and 12b, etc. etc., to the point where the difference between 10a and 10b is really tiny.

My guess is that if we could find a non-subjective way to analyze and quantify the difficulty range for climbs at different grades, we'd actually find that the division between grades gets smaller and smaller as the grades get higher and higher. (e.g. if we were able to build a climbing robot, and could measure, somehow, and quantify how much force, friction, extension, rotation, etc was needed to make the moves to do a climb, or something like that.)

But, generally grades feel farther apart the higher they go, because our response to training is one of greatly diminishing returns. Or, to put that another way, the closer we are to the limit of what we can achieve, the harder it is to gain any improvement in what we can do. So, we cruise past the easy grades, because we're in a high-return training zone, but as we get closer and closer to our personal limit, we have to work harder and harder to get better, so the difference in grades feels like it is increasing, even if it isn't from a pure physics/mechanics viewpoint.

Further to the previous comments, around here, the age of the crag and area also influence grades. Older crags have grades based on the assumption that 5.10 was about as hard as it gets, leading to serious sandbags. In some areas, climbers intentionally sandbag routes for some twisted form of "fun". This leads to routes below the FA's ability being undergraded, making it dangerous for noobs, with harder routes being more reasonably graded. Other areas have grades for new routes set to be compatible with other routes for the area, rather than considering the real route difficulty. I always check who the FA is and take the grade with a grain of salt.